Would Al consider being Barack's VP?

I think Gore would be very happy having a special cabinet position made for him and being told by Obama: "We'll give you everything you need. Just fix the environment." I don't think he'd be VP, just because he's been there/done that and found out how confining it is. Note that Al's message in the last 6 months or so has changed from "It's up to each person to fix the climate crisis" to "We can't do it alone -- we need lawmakers to lead the way to fix global warming." His message has become more government-focused. His timing is never coincidence. He's too smart for that.

Hillary, on the other hand, I think, would be very happy with VP. She'd line up well in 8 years, she'd bring in all the populated states that Obama didn't "win" in the primaries, etc. They do actually agree on a lot of things, Obama and Clinton. And it'd make a great ticket -- just a super powerhouse of politicos. I think she'd be perfectly happy if Barack sat down with her, hashed out a common healthcare policy (middle ground? Hillary's?), and said to her: "We'll give you everything you need. Just fix healthcare." There would be two huge domestic problems virtually taken care of right there.

The problem in my scenario, of course, is that that would mean that Hill and Al would have to work closely together. And I don't think they get along. Not to mention where Bill would insert himself in the mix.

This weekend's Gore for Pres articles

I'll post 'em as my friends find 'em! :-)

• The Gore Factor
  
• He has someone else in mind for president -- a letter to the Nashua (NH) Telegraph

How the world would be different

If you pay for an online subscription to the New York Times, you're in luck. As an abstract to the article:

Bob Herbert Op-Ed column on his interview with Al Gore, whom he calls perhaps most qualified person in country to be president; speculates on what might have been if Gore, who got most votes in 2000, actually became president; says his new book The Assault on Reason takes blowtorch to Bush administration; says Gore, asked why he is not running for president in 2008, says he lacks tolerance for triviality and artifice necessary in politics today; says he voices contempt for notion that important and complex matters can be seriously addressed in sound-bite sentences or 30-second television ads, which is how presidential campaigns are now conducted.

We know he's right, of course... we just hope he's not right about this forever, though. We're the ones who have to dictate, in this new media world, how we get the information we want. Why do we abide by the junk food approach to politics? Why do we refuse the meat and potatoes? Is it just too much work for us, as citizens? How sad... And how about we start to change that?!

This election will be different from the last one, and certainly worlds different from the election that Gore won in 2000. Social media, podcasts, blogs, YouTube, iTunes, self-publishing -- they've all taken a great tack in the political sphere. Isn't it about time the Internet-enabled citizens of this country start to take back what's ours? The message is no longer for the marketers of the world to dictate -- it's ours to control now.

Read The New Influencers if you want to be inducted into the social media realm. The book is aimed at business marketers, but why can't we apply those lessons to political "marketers" or to mainstream media? Why do the mainstream media outlets need to tell us what we need to learn about the candidates? Why are 30-second media bytes necessary anymore?

Full disclosure: The author of The New Influencers, Paul Gillin, is my fiance. It wouldn't take a lot of work to figure that out, but I thought I'd make it easier on you. :-)